[remram]

Obsidian's own file format might have merit, but posting it as an "open file format", "created to provide (...) interoperability, and extensibility to data created with infinite canvas apps"... and then publishing 1.0 without consulting with anybody else... is rather egregious, I think.

I agree with you that posting Obsidian's spec to start the conversation would have been welcome, but this is not what they did.

[npunt]

Obsidian's philosophy is file over app [1] and releasing a spec for their Canvas feature is fulfilling that promise. It's a strictly positive 'today is better than yesterday' thing for them to have done so.

You shouldn't need to ask permission or consult anyone to do this. That's a silly bar, 'egregious' even. When markdown was created, Gruber wasn't asking all his friends making text editors whether they'd support it. He just released it, and others chose to adopt it on its merits.

I don't meant this to sound harsh, but just to call it as I see it - your comment is basically creating a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario and an example of why people building things shouldn't worry much about comments in forums.

[1]: https://stephango.com/file-over-app

[gcr]

I’m glad Obsidian is publishing this, even though the spec clearly isn’t ready yet.

If I had the final say for how this format were to be publicized, I would probably just include the JSON schema “as-is” in the Obsidian developer docs. Then, it’s just as usable by third parties without making promises about interoperability.

But Obsidian is thinking ahead here. They’ve intentionally given us a duck to poke at[1], knowing we’d offer feedback and critique. If the goal is to get people to imagine a better implementation, preying on HN’s “I could implement this so much better” sense is one hecking smart way to get the community to pitch in.

1: https://bwiggs.com/notebook/queens-duck/

[rahoulb]

> Then, it’s just as usable by third parties without making promises about interoperability.

I'd say this is the point.

If it's "published as part of Obsidian" it implies Obsidian can break it at any time and the interop anyone else has built will need updating. But "published as a standalone spec" means Obsidian is saying "we won't change this without warning" (at the very least).

[npunt]

Yeah, whether or not it's intentional, the approach taken is one that will generate a lot of feedback.

I haven't seen anyone mention it in this thread, but my immediate reaction to seeing JSON Canvas was that it looks like a spiritual sibling to Markdown, a famously (and intentionally) informal spec.

There's a real wisdom to this informal spec approach, and it's worked incredibly well for Markdown despite grumblings about its lack of standardization.

I imagine this is the Obsidian team's intention with JSON Canvas. Obsidian has really benefitted from the informality of Markdown, which meant they were free to extend it in ways that made sense to the product (with things like cross-page ^ references, yaml frontmatter, etc), without triggering the Spec Police. The same perhaps applies here to Canvas products.

[keybored]

However, you should ask Gruber if he is willing to bless your your name if you include a hint towards “markdown” in it (referencing Commonmark), or else there’ll be a big kerfuffle. (funny example to use)

[rat9988]

I'm not sure I agree with you here at all. They can start a format that serves their own purpose, and make it open for interoperability and extensibility sake. Nothing wrong with it.

[remram]

"egregious" was a strong word, apologies. Still the silence is deafening here.

[haswell]

This is an odd bit of gatekeeping and I really don’t understand your position here. Calling this egregious seems odder still. It suggests that companies that choose to publish how they do things have some obligation to do so under a specific framework or shouldn’t do so unless they’re willing to get public buyin.

Many of the best projects that become defacto standards start as a solution to a very specific and real problem that had no public input.

If JSON canvas isn’t a good solution for broad adoption/interoperability, it won’t become one. The world is not harmed by its release, and at worst, it’s now far easier for people building software to understand and make tools that can interact with Obsidian. At best, it becomes a solid foundation and option for tools going forward.

Obsidian didn’t have to do anything here. I’m glad they did.

[blowski]

And indeed, there are many projects that spend so long trying to gather and process feedback that it becomes a talking shop with no useful output. Better to share something early and then iterate.